Feed aggregator
Torres Strait Tropical Rock Lobster Fishery - Agency application 2016
Regulator delays rule change that could accelerate battery storage
Italy earthquake: 98 aftershocks in 36 hours
Feral animals are running amok on Australia's islands – here's how to stop them
Australia has some 8,300 islands, many of them home to threatened species. But humans have introduced rodents and predators such as feral cats and foxes to many of these islands, devastating native wildlife and changing entire island ecosystems. Removing invasive mammals has proven to be a very effective tool for protecting island species.
As a result, the federal government has made it a priority to remove invasive vertebrates from islands where they pose the most severe threats to native plants and animals.
But choosing where to remove those invasives is difficult. We don’t have complete information about the distribution of native species and threats across the nation’s 8,300 islands, and we haven’t been able to predict where eradication will have the most benefit.
However, in a recent study published in Nature Communications, our global team of scientists looked at islands around the world to consider where we can get the biggest bang for our buck.
Eradicating cats, rats and pigs from Flinders Island in Tasmania would help save forty-spotted pardalotes. Francesco Veronesi, CC BY-SA It costs money to save speciesThe total cost of the recently completed rat and rabbit eradication on Macquarie Island was A$27 million. The proposed removal of rats from Lord Howe Island off New South Wales is expected to cost A$9 million.
Federal Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg has just announced funding to remove feral cats from five islands: Christmas Island, Dirk Hartog Island and the French Islands in Western Australia; and Bruny and King Islands in Tasmania.
Conservation dollars are limited, so it is important that these pricey interventions be focused on the islands where they will go the furthest toward conserving native island biodiversity.
Conversely, it is essential that we identify places where they won’t provide much benefit, either because a threatened species is likely to go extinct regardless of such interventions, or because the invasive species actually poses little threat.
It cost A$24 million to eradicate rats and rabbits from Macquarie Island. Macquarie Island image from www.shutterstock.com Island lifeWe analysed the effects of invasive mammals on 1,200 globally threatened species across more than 1,000 islands to develop a model for where eradicating invasive wildlife will provide the greatest benefits to island species.
We estimate nearly half of threatened species populations on islands could disappear without conservation efforts. But targeted eradication could prevent 40-75% of these losses.
We found that just a few types of invasive mammals – rats, cats, pigs, mongooses and weasels – are most strongly associated with the disappearance of native species from islands.
Importantly, our study shows that the impacts of invasive mammals vary widely across the type of native species (native amphibians, birds, reptiles or mammals) and the conditions of the islands on which they live.
For example, we found that removing invasive mammals from small, dry islands could halve the extirpation risk for threatened native birds and mammals, but doing so on large, wet islands would have less benefit.
Australia’s most important islandsOur study included thirty-three Australian islands, home to 17 species of globally threatened birds, mammals and amphibians including the woylie (or brush-tailed bettong), Tasmania devils, black-browed albatross and Cooloola sedgefrog.
Eighteen of these islands are also home to introduced rats, cats or pigs, which potentially threaten native species with extinction.
Traditionally, we might assume that eradicating cats and rats would always reduce bird extinctions. However, our study suggests otherwise.
Eradicating cats and rats could help northern quolls on some islands. Quoll image from www.shutterstock.comRat or cat eradication may have little benefit on some islands. This is either because these invasive species have relatively minor impacts in some island environments, or because the native population is likely to go extinct regardless of conservation interventions.
So our study shows that of these 18 islands, eradicating invasive species on only two would likely prevent extinction of three native species populations. These are the eradication of cats and rats on Groote Eylandt in the Northern Territory, which would avert the extirpation (that is, the island-level extinction) of the northern quoll and northern hopping mouse; and the eradication of cats, rats and pigs on Flinders Island in Tasmania, which would avert the extirpation of the forty-spotted pardalote.
While this sounds like a tiny number, remember we haven’t looked at all of Australia’s islands and the species that live on them. Indeed, we only included species considered threatened at a global level. For the other islands not included in our study, species threatened with extinction at regional or national scales may - or may not - benefit from eradicating invasive species. As more information comes in on these islands, our analysis can suggest which of these we should focus on.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.
Vintage films show risky (and hilarious) behavior in US national parks – video
The rules of acceptable behavior in the national parks have changed drastically over the past 100 years. It was once legal to drive through trees, ride waterfalls, and boil an egg in the Yellowstone hot springs – but now such actions are generally frowned upon
Continue reading...Fracking and the burning question of regulation | Letters
With respect to Professor MacDonald (Letters, 22 August), a recently published analysis of peer-reviewed literature between 2009 and 2015 demonstrates that 84% of the studies contain findings that indicate public health hazards, elevated risks or adverse health outcomes in fracking areas, all of which were confident no doubt that their regulations were world class. There are similar high levels of anxiety concerning water and air quality in fracking areas.
The professor does not share with us what it is, other than the industry’s assertion, that makes our UK system of regulation, not yet tested for shale, so watertight. Her last paragraph sits ill from an academic and hardly withstands the most cursory scrutiny: how can an untried system be world class – despite the “study after study undertaken in the UK by renowned universities”? How do we know? It is not enough that Public Health England “recognise that concentrations [of radon released by fracking to the environment] are not expected to result in significant additional radon exposure”. What kind of assurance is this?
David Cragg-James
York
Tiny tribute
America’s most remote site – the undiscovered side of Yellowstone
The south-eastern edge of Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming takes a week of backpacking to hike in and out and is populated by wolves and grizzly bears
- 100 years of the National Park Service: readers’ photo and stories
- 10 of the least-visited US national parks
The most remote place in the contiguous 48 states, the farthest you can go to get away from it all – the only place you can be more than 20 miles from a road – is deep in the south-eastern corner of Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming.
Related: 'We need to preserve this beauty': your memories of US national parks
Continue reading...Surface water shifting around the Earth
'We need to preserve this beauty': your memories of US national parks
To celebrate 100 years of the National Park Service, we asked you to share what America’s natural wonders mean to you
The National Park Service turns 100 this week, and to celebrate its century of protecting American’s most treasured places, we asked you to share your memories and photos of the parks. Here’s a selection of your contributions. You can see all of them – and share your own – here.
Related: Celebrating 100 years of the National Park Service: readers' photo and stories
Continue reading...Rare dodo skeleton to be auctioned in West Sussex
Aiming high
British public back strong new wildlife laws post-Brexit, YouGov poll shows
Majority of British public polled support protections at least as strong as current EU rules and many think farming subsidies should focus more on environmental protection
An overwhelming majority of the British public polled want new post-Brexit laws protecting wildlife and the countryside to be at least as strong as the EU rules currently in place, according to a opinion poll published on Thursday.
Many also want a new farming subsidy regime to emphasise environmental protection more than the EU’s existing Common Agricultural Policy and the vast majority want an EU ban on neonicotinoid pesticides, known to harm bees and other pollinators, to remain in place.
Continue reading...Lawnmower prompts Northern Lights alert
Microsoft Excel blamed for gene study errors
Global warming is melting the Greenland Ice Sheet, fast | John Abraham
The Greenland Ice Sheet is losing 110,000 Olympic size swimming pools worth of water each year.
A new study measures the loss of ice from one of world’s largest ice sheets. They find an ice loss that has accelerated in the past few years, and their measurements confirm prior estimates.
As humans emit heat-trapping gases, we expect to see changes to the Earth. One obvious change to be on the lookout for is melting ice. This includes ice atop mountains, ice floating in cold ocean waters, and the ice within large ice sheets or glaciers. It is this last type of ice loss that most affects ocean levels because as the water runs into the oceans, it raises sea levels. This is in contrast to melting sea ice – since it is already floating in ocean waters, its potential to raise ocean levels is very small.
Continue reading...Oil, gas and marine parks really can coexist in our oceans – here's how
When it comes to conserving the world’s oceans, bigger isn’t necessarily better. Globally, there has been an increasing trend towards placing very large marine reserves in remote regions. While these reserves help to meet some conservation targets, we don’t know if they are achieving their ultimate goal of protecting the diversity of life.
In 2002, the Convention on Biological Diversity called for at least 10% of each of the world’s land and marine habitats to be effectively conserved by 2010. Protected areas currently cover 14% of the land, but less than 3.4% of the marine environment.
Australia’s marine reserve system covers more than a third of our oceans. This system was based on the best available information and a commitment to minimising the effects of the new protected areas on existing users. However, since its release the system has been strongly criticised for doing little to protect biodiversity, and it is currently under review.
In a new study published in Scientific Reports, we looked at the current and proposed marine reserves off northwest Australia – an area that is also home to significant oil and gas resources. Our findings show how conservation objectives could be met more efficiently. Using technical advances, including the latest spatial modelling software, we were able to fill major gaps in biodiversity representation, with minimal losses to industry.
A delicate balanceAustralia’s northwest supports important habitats such as mangrove forests, seagrass beds, coral reefs and sponge gardens. These environments support exceptionally diverse marine communities and provide important habitat for many vulnerable and threatened species, including dugongs, turtles and whale sharks.
This region also supports valuable industrial resources, including the majority of Australia’s conventional gas reserves.
A 2013 global analysis found that regions featuring both high numbers of species and large fossil fuel reserves have the greatest need for industry regulation, monitoring and conservation.
Proposed and existing state and Commonwealth marine reserves in northwest Australia shown in relation to petroleum leases. Cordelia Moore Conservation opportunititesNot all protected areas contribute equally to conserving species and habitats. The level of protection can range from no-take zones (which usually don’t allow any human exploitation), to areas allowing different types and levels of activities such tourism, fishing and petroleum and mineral extraction.
A recent review of 87 marine reserves across the globe revealed that no-take areas, when well enforced, old, large and isolated, provided the greatest benefits for species and habitats. It is estimated that no-take areas cover less than 0.3% of the world’s oceans.
In Australia’s northwest, no-take zones cover 10.2% of the area, which is excellent by world standards in terms of size. However, an analysis of gaps in the network reveal opportunities to better meet the Convention on Biological Diversity’s recommended minimum target level of representation across all species and features of conservation interest.
We provided the most comprehensive description of the species present across the region enabling us to examine how well local species are represented within the current marine reserves. Of the 674 species examined, 98.2% had less than 10% of their habitat included within the no-take areas, while more than a third of these (227 species) had less than 2% of their habitat included.
Into the abyssFew industries in this region operate in depths greater than 200 metres. Therefore, the habitats and biodiversity most at risk are those exposed to human activity on the continental shelf, at these shallower depths.
However, the research also found that three-quarters of the no-take marine reserves are sited over a deep abyssal plain and continental rise within the Argo-Rowley Terrace (3,000-6,000m deep). These habitats are unnecessarily over-represented (85% of the abyss is protected), as their remoteness and extreme depth make them logistically and financially unattractive for petroleum or mineral extraction anyway.
The majority of the no-take marine reserves lie over a deep abyssal plain. Cordelia MooreProposed multiple-use zones in Commonwealth waters provide some much-needed extra representation of the continental shelf (0-200m depth). However, all mining activities and most commercial fishing activities are permissible pending approval. This means that the management of these multiple-use zones will require some serious consideration to ensure they are effective.
A win for conservation and industryAn imbalance in marine reserve representation can be driven by governments wanting to minimise socio-economic costs. But it doesn’t have to be one or the other.
Our research has shown that better zoning options can maximise the number of species while still keeping losses to industry very low. Our results show that the 10% biodiversity conservation targets could be met with estimated losses of only 4.9% of area valuable to the petroleum industry and 7.2% loss to the fishing industry (in terms of total catch in kg).
Examples of how the no-take reserves could be extended or redesigned to represent the region’s unique species and habitats. Cordelia MooreManagement plans for the Commonwealth marine reserves are under review and changes that deliver win-win outcomes, like the ones we have found, should be considered.
We have shown how no-take areas in northwest Australia could either be extended or redesigned to ensure the region’s biodiversity is adequately represented. The cost-benefit analysis used is flexible and provides several alternative reserve designs. This allows for open and transparent discussions to ensure we find the best balance between conservation and industry.
Cordelia Moore has received funding from the University of Western Australia, the Australian Institute of Marine Science and CSIRO.
Clay Bryce receives funding from the Western Australian Museum and Woodside Energy.
Hugh Possingham receives funding from The Australian Research Council, The Department of The Environment (Australia) and a lot of other groups. He is affiliated with the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, Bush Heritage Australia and sits on heaps of boards and committees.
Oliver Berry receives funding from The Western Australian Marine Science Institution.
Romola Stewart has previously received funding from PEW Charitable Trusts Australia.
Ben Radford does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.